... or a wall of U28D590D for $699 each. 60Hz TN 4K. I'm glad to see the major players offer up affordable 60Hz 4K. Of course, I'd rather have 120Hz 4K DP1.3. Doesn't matter if you can't play games, it would be of tremendous value to me just for desktop operations.Reply

If I'm correct in assuming you're talking about the 39" Seiko TV then I must inform you that those are not 120Hz screens in the same sense that a computer monitor is 120Hz. Those Seiko TV's only take an HDMI input which is currently limited to 4K@30Hz. They then interpolate frames between frames of source material to give the illusion of 120Hz. A 120Hz monitor takes in a 120Hz signal and displays it natively. There are currently no 4K 120Hz monitors on the market (there aren't even any 2560x1600 120Hz monitors I'm aware of).Reply

The 50" Seiki 4K TVs do native 120Hz 1080p over HDMI 1.4, but it seems to be a lottery as to whether it needs to be hacked or not. While this resolution is not officially supported, creating a custom EDID makes it possible. In addition, several people have been loading the 50" firmware on the 39", making native 120Hz 1080p possible there as well. So you can have your desktop and videos at 30Hz 4K (not ideal, but still razor sharp) while also gaming at 120Hz 1080p. Some are claiming 720p at native 240Hz... but I'd have to see that to believe it.

All seiki 50 inch displays will natively display 1080p@120Hz. The 39 inch models all will to (with a firmware update). The 39 inch monitors with the firmware update do pixel doubling which means ideal scaling for gaming (almost identical to gaming on a big 1080p display with no scaling artifacts).

Both the 50 inch (and 39 with the right firmware) will accept 720p@240Hz. It sitll only displays 120Hz but this does halve the input lag from around 9ms to 4.5 ms which is why for games where it really matters (only quakelive for me) I ran at 1280x720@240Hz.Reply

Actually, the 39" inch Seiko *does* accept 1080@120hz over hdmi (when flashed with the firmware from 50" Seiko) and output all individual 120 frames per second (it looks very smooth!). You're right that it's limited to 4k@30hz.Reply

Are you referring to the ud590? It's hardly a "direct competitor." It's not only 4" diagonal smaller but it's a TN panel, and lacks quite a few input types. Or are you referring to the ud970, in which case would you please post a source to the $800 price tag, which sounds unlikely.

On top of that, remember that you then need 2 video cards to power 4/6 monitors (nvidia supports 4 but only in span with the fourth as an "extra" display) so you won't even be able to tile them properly by default. On top of that have fun trying to play a game across all the monitors. At least with a single 4K display you can render at 1080p and have a seamless scaling across the entire display. With 4 or 6 monitors you'd have to run it in the standard "eyefinity" style 3x1 configuration which is nice, but also will cost you with resolution. At that point you're going to need not just two GPUs, but likely two high end GPUs. When all is said and done I don't think you'll save much once you take into account the disadvantages of the setup on top of the price.Reply

You have never been truly productive with a computer, have you ?A multi monitor setup enables me to do things just that much faster. While you could argue that a 4K monitor would allow me to do stuff side by side on the same panel, at the end of the day, when the new resolution becomes the norm, you have to develop content for 4k. And the only way to see your results is to see them at 4k, so you have to have another panel. Single display setups are meant for lazy office people and content consumers. And even then, playing a game with a surround monitor setup is much nicer than having one large monitor.People used the same kind of software back in the days of 1280 by 1024, 1024 by 768 and 800 by 640. And even though most of the software for today is written for 1080p or 1200p panels, the fact still remains, you cannot operate Visual Studio in half of that. Hell, it's a nightmare to run Visual Studio on 1336 by 768, let alone something like 960 by 1080p. Even though application UI's appear scalable, scaling them is a last resort. So yes, when we will catch up to 4K on the software side of things, we will need multiple monitors again. But yes, of course, for a web developer of today, being able to edit multiple stylesheets, javascript and html files at the same time AND seeing the result largely in scale is truly great. Unfortunately, most enterprise developers rarely need to edit countless files at once and the php/css people just simply will not be able to afford these displays. Reply

If you are talking running those 4 monitors to get a total screen space of 3840x2160, sure, you could do that, but you entirely miss the point of having a high-density monitor. The pixels on a 39" 1080p screen are the size of a truck. Maybe suitable for using as a TV viewed across your living room, but not as a monitor a couple of feet from your face.Reply

Yes, that information could help, since not every test was done on Nvidia/AMD and the same driver. Also, it would help a lot to hear if those problems also happen with ASUS and Sharp, to compare those products. Anandtech made a review already: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7157/asus-pq321q-ult...Reply

This is correct. There is currently no full HDMI 2.0 silicon out there that I'm aware of, and since the Dell started shipping last fall it certainly didn't have access to it then. There are currently devices shipping that claim "HDMI 2.0" support in the AV world, but that isn't full HDMI 2.0. It is support for 4:2:0 chroma subsampling, which is part of the HDMI 2.0 spec, and enabled UltraHD resolution at 60 Hz. Since computers don't use chroma subsampling, this isn't relevant and there is no HDMI 2.0 silicon right now.Reply

I was speaking about 600MHz HDMI not ~300MHz. 300MHz HDMI has been around since GCN 1.0 and Kepler. It's also available in Haswell, works fine in Windows, OS X or GNU/Linux at that res, but that limits it's to 30Hz for 3840x2160. That's not HDMI 2.0 specs. You can't use anything else than DisplayPort for 60Hz 4k/UHD. DisplayPort-receivers only do that on MST too. You need two 300MHz HDMI-ports to do UHD @ 60Hz. So gaming in UHD with HDMI is out regardless of gpu/source.

Maxwell doesn't do H.265/HEVC for that matter either. You only need ~300MHz HDMI 1.4 to do 4096x2160 @ 24Hz. Not HDMI 2.0, that can do it @ 60Hz.Reply

As far as things that still aren't there, I'd throw in color space (both gamut and bit depth) as well. Official UHDTV (see Rec. 2020), beyond the resolution standards bumping to 4K or 8K, also at last features a significantly larger color space and also the depth necessary to go with it (either 10-bit or 12-bit). That's another marquee feature of HDMI 2.0, 12-bit 4:2:2 4K@60fps. Without the increase depth a wider gamut isn't a straight upgrade since the delta between colors increases too, 8-bit AdobeRGB say isn't a clear superset of 8-bit sRGB. It's exciting that as well as HiDPI we'll finally see an industry wide shift to a color space that will be a strict improvement and is large enough to basically be "done" as far as human vision.

There's still a lot more pieces needed on the PC side though, including both hardware (video cards, interconnect) and OS/applications. High DPI is slowly improving, but even Apple has slipped a bit in terms of color management and support. That said, given the economies of scale that'll come with the general UHDTV push the market pressure should be there at least.Reply

"Sure, you can run a desktop at full resolution with no scaling but that is almost impossible for anyone to actually use. To get any real benefit from any HiDPI display you are going to need OS and Application support."

I don't understand this thinking. To fully utilize all the pixels at your disposal, why would you scale? You want native 1:1 resolution. It makes NO sense to scale. If you can't make out the details with the finer pixels with your eyes, why bother getting more pixels in the first place?

Objective utilization of higher resolution requires ability for your eyes to *resolve* the pixels better, which means its purpose is for screen real estate of display items, not to scale the picture on this 4k monitor to the same size as seen on a 1080p monitor.

4k on 32" monitor at 1:1 pixels is very useable, if you don't have bad eyesight. If you need to scale, meaning your eyes can't resolve well at this pixel density, then why not just get something like 2560 x 1440 instead at the same size? Plus you'll have the added benefit of avoid distortion and blurriness introduced from scaling bitmaps.Reply

He doesn't mean scaling as in stretching it out, he means more intelligent scaling like all phones and newer desktop programs do.

Interface elements are composed of more pixels to increase clarity and keep them big enough to be usable. If Photoshop worked well with HiDPI systems the buttons physical size would remain the same but be made up of more pixels. The photo work area though would be 1:1.Reply

What I mean is why scale? Why not have everything proportionate to the DPI to actually utilize the extra pixels? But adding extra pixels to interface elements doesn't actually add extra detail that was not there to begin with. It's not like a photograph. It just adds extra pixels for the sake of increasing size. Even if adding extra pixels to the interface elements increases "clarity"--let's assume it's something like a highres texture--that means your eyes can resolve the details better i.e. actual perceive the difference in resolution. So if your eyes can actually resolve the difference in detail at a finer level, why not just keep them small in order to gain more useable working space? That's where real utility comes in.

Most applications like the majority of graphics and audio applications using their own custom UI don't use vector graphics. They instead use bitmaps with pixel level precision placement and bitmap fonts in order to have small widgets. Most of these, DAWs, 3D, Adobe-like programs, etc pack a ton of things in the interface. Why not take advantage of the resolution for more working space then?Reply

Without scaling on High DPI screens text becomes so small that it is not legible at worst or really uncomfortable to read. With proper scaling text looks much nicer on a high DPI screen. Look at 1080p phones as an example, text looks great.If you want to see the need for scaling, remote desktop to your computer from a 1080p phone. You'll have a full 1920x1080 desktop but it will not really be usable.Reply

I've been playing with the Dell UP2414Q and it is razor-sharp and legible without scaling at exactly the same distance that I had my 24" FW900 located - about 30" away. Spreadsheets look particularly incredible! Reply

Well those people don't have to buy it. I don't believe that I have Superman-esque vision, but maybe those people that can't read the text need a newer prescription for their glasses. I know I wouldn't be able to enjoy 4K without my cheaters... I can barely enjoy 1080p at that distance without them.Reply

This monitor is at 140 dpi. The phone you're speaking of is likely well over 300 dpi. There's a difference. 140 dpi does not require superhuman vision to see without scaling, more like somewhat "normal" vision.Reply

Photoshop does work just fine as long as you enable OpenGL and use Windows 7/8 with custom DPI settings.

But I'm with npz, you don't get a 4k monitor to limit yourself to 2k spaces. The only reason to use 4k at all is to tile your windows (or for use in CAD, but most CAD work is better on 2x 1600p because it's easier to drive with cheaper cards).Reply

100% agree here. The problem is people are pussies and god forbid the text is smaller than what it is on a 96 DPI screen and it suddenly becomes unreadable. Dude there are people who say 3840x2160 on a 39 inch seiki is to small... Give me a break. I used 3840x2400 on a 22 inch LCD since 2005 and that was on linux with X set at 75 DPI (smaller than windows 96) which made stuff even smaller and I had absolutely *no* issues using it 40 hours a week at work.Reply

Correct, 8.0 has static scaling across all displays. 8.1 introduced different scaling for each display.This works very well for surface pros that are docked. It will scale the surface pro display at 150% and the extra monitors at 100%. If you move a window between the displays the screen with the majority of the window will decide the scaling for that window. As you pull it from one screen to the next you will see the window change its scaling factor.Reply

Hey Chris, I have the similar UP2414Q and have the same issues of having to "reboot" the monitor frequently when waking my computer up from sleep. You said you were able to update your firmware for the 32" monitor. Is there one for the 24" model as well? I was not able to find one.Reply

Where did you get the firmware update from? I own a UP2414Q and experience the issues you described in your article (the need to power cycle the monitor most of the time after the computer goes to sleep is driving me crazy), but I couldn't find a firmware update on Dell's site.Reply

Windows can scale each display independently. Most desktop apps don't support that yet and get blurry. But Windows itself is definitely there and works just fine. Now it's the app developers who have to step up.Reply

They claim in can, but it doesn't work properly. I have two displays connected to my computer, a 2414Q (2160p) and a 2414H (1200p). I can either say I want to use the same scaling for both displays, in which case I am allowed to specify the DPI scaling, or I can choose to use separate scalings for the monitors, which is utterly broken - Windows guesses ("detects") the proper DPI scaling and if I am not satisfied it allows me to scale both display simultaneously, but not separately, which is kind of brain dead, especially since it doesn't guess (ehm.. detect) the DPI properly on the 4k display. Aside that, using the same (200%) scaling on both screens breaks some DPI unaware applications, but letting Windows use separate DPI scalings breaks most DPI unaware apps. In either case, the 1200p screen is useless as everything is too big, or the 4k display has elements so tiny you can't work with it without a magnifying glass. Why I can't simply state I want to have 180dpi on screen 1 and 100dpi on screen 2 is beyond me.Reply

If you set your primary display to 120% and your secondary to 200% the 200% will actually be 120% bitmap scaled. Or wise versa. One screen will always look rubbish and blurry. Read what Microsoft says instead of broad claims!Reply

this is an April fool right ! at $3,499/$2800, under no circumstance is any real certified UHD-1 Rec. 2020 real color space 10bit per pixel "UHD-1" 3840x2160P 16:9 ratio panel going to give you only 99% AdobeRGB at best

I don't believe I ever said it has full Rec. 2020 coverage. Nothing has Rec. 2020 coverage as aside from lasers (I've been told), nothing can produce the gamut required. Not LEDs, not quantum dots, nothing. The display claims AdobeRGB and sRGB gamut which is what it has.Reply

"Nothing has Rec. 2020 coverage as aside from lasers (I've been told), nothing can produce the gamut required. "

:) he is wrong OC as they would not and could not ratify the 2020 spec if they could not already produce the results it lays out, the guy was probably trying to sell the Mitsubishi LaserVue panels with their use a laser for red and regular LED’s for blue and green...

Much like with Rec. 470, Rec. 601 and Rec. 709 the Rec. 2020 standard is more than just a color space. It is the standard for Ultra High Definition Television (UHD-TV), which knows two versions: 4K (3840x2160 and 4096x2160) and 8K (7680x4320 and 8192x4320). Apart from the obvious improvement in resolution over the Rec. 709 standard, the Rec. 2020 standard also improves upon its predecessor in many other ways. The maximum frame rate doubles from 60 Hz progressive to 120 Hz progressive (interlaced resolutions are no longer supported, which is good). The color depth also increases by at least 2 bits per channel, with the possibility of 4 bits. Because Rec. 709 and Rec. 2020 both use studio swing /narrow band, this does not result in the usual 16.8 million, 1.07 billion and 68.7 billion colors though.

Last but not least, the Rec. 2020 offers significant improvement over the Rec. 709 standard when it comes to the color gamut: nearly twice the size of its predecessor. It uses three monochromatic primaries with wavelengths of 630, 532 and 467 nm. This results in a very large gamut, but without most of the drawbacks of even larger color spaces like the Adobe Wide Gamut RGB color space.

Most of the thought process behind the origin of these primaries can be found in ITU Recommendation BT 2246-2:2012. The summarized version is that UHD-TV should have a larger color gamut in order to cover the real surface colors (based on Pointer’s gamut and SOCS database) as much as possible using real primaries."

what is clear is that much like the PCISIG the ethernet SIG etc the panel entities are also not fit for purpose as they dragged their feet actually producing new panels and ened to end kit to the latest specs that where in effect made by NHK and the BBC R&D...Reply

For my data point: using the Mac 10.9.3 with HiDPI on an UltraHD display is gorgeous. If you have a Mac that can handle it (I have a 2012 Macbook Retina, as a reference point), you should definitely try it. It's like the retina display but huge. My eyes are finally happy.Reply

tjoynt, find the best visual quality "2001 A Space Odyssey Opening in 1080 HD" or higher clip you can find https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-QFj59PON4 and play that , tell us you cant see the ringing due to the 8 bit per pixel pseudocolor, that why we need Rec. 2020 color space, in fact 10bit isnt really enough as it takes 11bit's or more to get true real colour but consumers have to make do for a reasonable price (this is not reasonable) Reply

I guess displays like this are for the niche market where people will buy it anyway to show off. There simply isnt much engineering behind a screen like this anway, they just slap a 4k panel and some electronics into a box and call it a 4k display. The many unacceptible flaws listed in this review prove this point.Reply

This monitor is not ultra-high dpi. It is just high dpi. The 4k is just a good resolution for 32".

150% is a suitable dpi setting in Windows for this monitor.

People using this monitor will typically not be using it with other screens at the same time, or low res monitors. The typical uses will be as a single screen connected to a desktop, or to a laptop. 150% might also be suitable for a good laptop screen, say 1080p 13".

Also most software has worked well with high dpi settings in Windows for several years.

The only problem with windows is the lack of per-screen dpi but the extent to which this poses a problem with this screen is exaggerated. The pixel-war 4k resolutions for small screens, e.g. 24", are more likely pose a problem because they would require a dpi setting close to 200% which would be very inappropriate for most other screens.Reply

The problem is if you use this as the primary monitor in Windows with 150%, say your 27" 2560x1440 monitor that you run at 100% will be 150% bitmap scaled to 100% in Windows 8.1. If you choose you 100% screen as primary the results will be really disastrous. One screen will always look blurry and bad if you do not use the same scaling. Plenty of Microsoft's own software doesn't work decent with DPI-scaling and stuff like the browser ignores the native scaling and just scales by zooming. 24" 200% still produces some oddities even if it's your only screen. You can't really speak of any improvements here in Windows yet. OS X seems to do multiscreen better at least. Having different scaling on your laptop screen and external screen seems like a given to me.Reply

hey Chris, other reviewers found input lag to be less than 20ms. How come your results are so skewed? Aren't you suppose to use the best setting to test this? Why are u testing at a non native resolution? TBH you're better off not testing for it.Reply

The HDMI input is driving at 1080p at 60 Hz, not 30Hz. 30Hz would be if it was using a 4K signal. Tom's Hardware is measuring using a 1080p signal as well, so their results should be similar but they're using a high speed camera instead of the Leo Bodnar device. TFT Central measures it using SMTT which I find slightly odd as that would require a CRT that can do UltraHD resolution, of which I'm not aware of any.

I'm working on a better way for input lag but for right now it's a static test that is as accurate, and comparable, as I can make it.Reply

Regarding the unexpectedly high case temperature the author measured, I'd expect that to be a function of high pixel density, which blocks a greater proportion of the backlight. This in turn requires more backlight intensity to produce a given panel illumination.Reply

I don't know what is considered by many as HiDPI but this monitor is most definitely not HiDPI at just 140 DPI! I know that most highend monitors are ~ 100 DPI and common one are even lower but I don't see why 140 DPI would be such a big deal. Are the Icons that much smaller? Are the alphanumeric character unreadable?

I believe the the ridiculously low DPI of generations of monitor has made expectation of huge icons and lettering the norm and they are just not needed. You can see the icons and characters perfectly fine at 140DPI no scaling is needed!Reply

Yeah I think its just people set in their ways. Even when I had an out-dated prescription and saw worse than 20/20 I still would have no problem with that size. The only thing I can think of is that is just how most people have used computers and are stuck in their ways. I used 1600x1200 on a 17 inch CRT way back in the days (pre windows-2000) and soon after when I switched to linux I was 2560x1920 on a 22 inch CRT. It was even a bit blurry but it was still not a problem and that was 160 PPI. With a super sharp 140 PPI display why do people need scaling? I don't use scaling even on a 200 PPI+ display. Reply

Personally, I'd like to see a 39" 4K monitor, using the same VA panel in the Seiki TV but with a 60 Hz input. The Seiki TV is OK for productivity apps, but if you play any games or watch videos, as I do, then the low frame rate is a deal-breaker.

A 39" monitor at 4K would provide an absolutely huge workspace - you would no longer need a multiple monitor setup. And the DPI isn't much higher than a standard 27" 2560x1440 monitor, so you don't need to use the Windows scaling that so many applications still don't do properly. (Microsoft really needs to do something about this - right now they seem content just to hope everyone eventually moves to Metro, which they aren't and won't.)Reply

You mention the usefulness of contrast over brightness in this instance. As LED monitors do lose a notable amount of brightness over time, are you able to re-test the brightness of a monitor that you have previously tested and recorded the numbers on and report the differences?

I suspect over the long term having a monitor that can go brighter than needed may be more useful than suspected.Reply

Lag does not cause motion blur. Lag is how long a display takes to react to an input, and is usually (in the case of displays like this) caused by a delay in the image processing circuitry in the display itself. Motion blur on the other hand would be caused by a slow pixel response time (where the pixels themselves take a long time to change states after the display has already begun to refresh).Reply

On the topic of HiDPI and scaling: I have a 11.6" 1080p laptop (XE700T1C) and have no issue with it running at 125% and that is with using my finger most of the time (I only use the pen when I am already holding it because of note taking). 11.6"@1080p is 190 DPI, this is just 140. Unless you are using multiple monitors and suffer issues because of that, you need to get your eye sight fixed if you have having "high DPI" trouble with modern Windows .Reply

I tested this monitor on linux. Works better on linux than all the rest because of the MST BS. On linux you just set it in a config file and never have problems and you don't have to worry about drivers 'dancing' their way around the problem. Not only that only on linux allows both GPU and monitor scaling of all resolutions while the display is in MST mode. People can't get scaling working at all on this on windows when the display is in MST mode.

Just FYI - these issues have all know since the monitor went on sale last December. Dell's stance currently is if you want one with a fixed firmware you have to give up your new monitor and accept a refurbished replacement.

170 watts power usage! Are you kidding me? Typical 32 inch led monitors use around 30 watts. Somebody had to tell manufacturers that power usage is supposed to go down not increase by a factor of almost six. Reply

Hey, it's still April's fools day... that price is a grotesque joke. Just save your hard earned $$$ for the Vizio P-series and forget that DELL even offers this HDMI 1.4 embarrassment of an UHD monitor.Reply

"Sure, you can run a desktop at full resolution with no scaling but that is almost impossible for anyone to actually use."

I use a 27" WQHD (2560X1440) monitor without any scaling, and it works beautifully. That's ~109DPI. It's not that much harder for a 32" UltraHD monitor to do the same. The DPI for that monitor calculates out to about 137DPI. I don't agree that it would be "almost impossible for anyone to actually use."Reply

The key is having good OS support for HiDPI. This is at least coming to OSX in 10.9.3.

I have a 2013 retina MBP driving a Dell UP2414Q on 10.9.3. It works really really well. I have it set to 2x scaling most of the time ("Retina" in Apple parlance) and so have a super super crisp display for software development/text all day long. I don't game much but all apps work perfectly. It is like looking at a 24" recent smartphone, iPad. The only issue I have is that on occasion the display will not wake from sleep, but a quick cycle of the monitor power button resolves its and all windows return to where they were. Once Dell fixes the firmware for this I will likely exchange it. Otherwise the build quality and image is superb.

Before people chortle that it is waste to have an OS scale a 4k monitor to 1080p, remember that even though the effective resolution is 1080p for text with OS X scaling, the full 4k resolution is still available for use by imaging apps, games, etc. And sometimes I simple change the OS scaling to provide a 2560x1440 desktop if I need more 'real estate'. But my primary goal with HiDPI is to finally have crisp, sharp readable text on a big screen. 4k @ 32" is not about HiDPI, it's about desktop real estate. So it depends on what your needs are.

fyi, I was recently able to buy the 24" Dell Ultrasharp for < $1000 all in with some careful shopping. That's a few hundred more than the recently announced Samsung UD590 but it's far nicer IPS panel. Reply

I don't know what is wrong at Dell. They never had the industrial design chops of Apple or IBM/Lenovo's products. But they were still head and shoulders above the other PC and display makers. The current Dell displays are just ugly. Not talking bout the picture quality, rather it's chassis and stand.Seriously, what is up with that hideous stand? There is not one angle that looks right on it. And the chassis with the silver and dark grey is very out of place on a $3k monitor.The Lenovo UHD-4k designs are far more professional looking. Asus qhd/4k/uhd displays are also more pleasing in a Honda CRX kind of way.Samsung and LG's professional offerings are similarly far less ugly.I know it may sound trite, but hey, if I am sitting in front of it 40+ hours a week it matters.Reply